Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

[Income Tax Act, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to re-establish the facts concerning the debate between the Minister of Transport for Canada and his Quebec counterpart on highway 175.

On June 4, I asked the Minister of Transport what game he was playing. I asked him why, in his response to the hon. member for Chicoutimi on June 2, he neglected to mention that the Quebec Minister of Transport had formally invited him to discuss a new strategic highway improvement program agreement, particularly for highway 175, at the meeting of the transport ministers in Edmonton?

In a letter dated May 27 and faxed the day before the Edmonton transport ministers meeting, Minister Brassard wrote as follows:

A new agreement strikes me as necessary in order to continue and complete projects begun under the strategic highway improvement program. It would also make it possible to initiate a new and top-priority project to bolster the economic development of Quebec.

He goes on to add:

Recent statements by Minister Massé when in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and north shore regions open the door to new negotiations on highways 175 and 169 in the Laurentides wildlife reserve, as well as highway 389.

At the end of his letter, Minister Brassard stressed his availability to discuss a new strategic highway improvement program with his federal counterpart at the Edmonton meeting.

How then are we to interpret the words of the Minister of Transport for Canada, when he neglects to mention the existence of this letter or its contents, and claims Minister Brassard did not mention highway 175 to him in Edmonton? The least one can say is that his words are not very transparent, and hide his inability to act on this.

What is clear, however, is that Quebec is prepared to negotiate a new SHIP agreement. The Government of Quebec will, in December 1998, table the conclusion to an opportunity study for a divided four-lane highway in the Laurentian wildlife sanctuary, which includes a section on funding possibilities.

From what the minister has said, are we to conclude that, if the Government of Quebec decides to go ahead with a four-lane highway, the federal government is prepared to fund its share of the project?

In the short term, the people of Quebec and more particularly the people in my riding would like to know whether the minister is prepared to start new negotiations for a new SHIP agreement.

I have the following questions for the minister. First, I would like to know whether he convinced his cabinet colleagues to increase funding for the national highway system, as his provincial counterparts have asked, or whether, on the contrary, he was turned down. Second, if cabinet is open to his request, would the minister tell me when he intends to give his officials the go-ahead to begin bipartite negotiations to conclude a new SHIP agreement?

These are clear and precise questions. I ask the parliamentary secretary to answer my questions directly, because, like me, the people in the riding of Jonquière want to know whether the federal government is prepared to invest in repairing the roads in Quebec and thus return the millions of dollars it collected with its 1.5 cent tax on gasoline.

[Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today I invite my colleagues to join me in celebrating this day of festivities for all the people of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region.

As a start to regional pride week, the people of our fine corner of the country want to share with you this moment of pleasure, which bears witness to the vitality of our community. Our people proudly raise the regional flag and with one voice sing the song of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region.

I will share one of the verses with you:

Once long ago a country wild, Oppressed by a conqueror Of courage far beyond the strength Of your unflinching majesty. Th'emboldened hand of ancestors Made you into their dwelling place And did create with strokes so sure Your vistas all magnificent.

Happy celebrations to all the people of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region.

[National Highway System, June 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in response to a question from the member for Chicoutimi this week, the Minister of Transport said that he had had no request from Quebec's transport minister for financial assistance with respect to route 175 between Quebec City and the Saguenay.

How could the minister make such a statement when a letter containing a very clear request for help repairing route 175 in the Parc des Laurentides and signed by the Minister of Transport for Quebec on May 27, was faxed to his office on the eve of the Edmonton meeting? What kind of game is the Minister of Transport playing?

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for asking me such an important question.

The people who come to me in my riding are people who are no longer in the system. They do not qualify for employment insurance or for welfare. The lack of understanding on the part of this government for people who work hard is beyond me.

My area has the highest rate of unemployment in Canada. It is nothing to be proud of. But I can tell you that people who come to me are people who have unstable jobs, who work 14, 15 or 16 hours a week and do not accumulate enough hours to qualify for employment insurance.

They will certainly not get rich by working only a few hours at minimum wage. At the end of the day, their employment insurance cheque will not amount to much.

All they want is to be able to survive, but the new employment insurance reform does not take this into account. People are not treated with common sense as they should be.

I wonder when the minister and his government are going to have the same common sense as ordinary people. The people in our area do not steal or cheat, they are hard working.

If I contribute to a health insurance plan, it means that when I am sick I am entitled to benefits. But people are paying employment insurance contributions and they cannot even benefit from them. They want protection against something they fear, protection that will help them get through tough times.

But no. The minister opposite and his colleagues have decided that even if you contribute to an insurance plan, you cannot draw on it unless you meet some ironclad criteria. This is unacceptable; this is the reason why the Bloc Quebecois and the people in my area are denouncing these social iniquities.

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with my colleague, the member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok.

I am pleased to join my colleagues, the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques and the member for Québec East, and to take part in the debate on the opposition motion they presented in this House, which reads as follows:

That the House castigate the government for the catastrophic effects of its reforms to unemployment insurance; for having taken over funds destined for unemployed persons; and for its inability to adapt the unemployment insurance system to the new realities of the labour market, particularly where young people, women and self-employed persons are concerned.

It was not yesterday that the Bloc Quebecois started criticizing the reforms to unemployment insurance and its devastating effects on the people of Quebec and Canada and more especially on groups of workers in vulnerable situations on the labour market, such as young people and women, who are being pushed into the maze of social assistance.

Last week, the Bloc Quebecois initiated an employment insurance week to draw the government's attention to the experience of the unemployed in Quebec and Canada.

As we might expect, the Liberal government again displayed its insensitivity to these groups of men and women, who, after contributing to the plan, are denied access to it when they need it most.

However the media did not ignore the questions raised by the Bloc Quebecois when it reminded us that only 41% of unemployed workers get benefits and that only 26% of young workers—one in four—who contribute to the plan end up getting benefits.

All of last week, we have seen and heard reports on television and on the radio highlighting the fact that the employment insurance plan is inadequate, given the conditions on the labour market. This is employment insurance in name only. We should rather be talking about a deficit insurance plan, because the government has had no qualms about diverting EI funds to erase the deficit first and now, with hardly any embarrassment, to build up budget surpluses.

This whole situation is utterly unacceptable, and groups all over Quebec are condemning the employment insurance plan and the government's policies that have thrown so many people into poverty.

We have to stop this bleeding of public funds. The employment insurance should be redesigned to ensure a better balanced support for various groups of workers in Quebec and in Canada.

It is nothing short of shameful that the EI fund is bursting at the seams while the federal government has to admit the sorry state of poverty in Canada. In 1989, 14.5% of children lived in families below the poverty line. There are now 20.5%. There is a direct link between this and the finance minister's drastic cuts in social programs.

The federal government can try all it wants to counter through piecemeal programs the impact of poverty on children in Quebec and Canada, but it should first give the heads of single parent families better opportunities to enter the labour market and support them in between jobs.

It is the same for young Quebeckers and Canadians who hold precarious jobs, contract jobs for a few weeks or a few months. This is the reality of the workforce for several of them.

And to encourage them to accumulate this invaluable work experience that will allow them to apply for better paying and more stable jobs, the human resources development minister has found nothing better than to impose a minimum of 910 hours of work on these newcomers during their first year of employment.

This is what I could call an employment insurance welcome tax. Indeed, it is a welcome tax for new members in the workforce, workers who will be the foundation of our economy and who will ensure the existence of our social programs in the future. Is this not a situation that should be of concern?

This is quite a gift from the Liberal government to our young people. On one side, it pushes them toward welfare and on the other, with red flags in hand, it claims to help these young people with the millennium scholarships slogan. Once again, Quebec's student group representatives came to say no to the Prime Minister and their speeches were eloquent, according to those who had the opportunity to listen to the RDI special program this morning.

The Bloc Quebecois is more valuable than ever, given the arrogance of this government that pretends to be sensitive to the Canadian and Quebec people. Our clashing voice in this stagnant pool of Liberal members who are waiting for their leader's cue, even when their personal beliefs are at stake, is echoing the voice of Quebeckers who have been let down by this dominating and centralizing federal system.

In the riding of Jonquière especially, my team and I have received many testimonies from people affected by the cuts in the employment insurance system.

Among the situations experienced by my fellow citizens, there is the sad situation of several part time workers who used to be eligible for unemployment insurance and are now unable to accumulate the number of hours required in a 52 week period.

Seasonal workers, especially construction workers in our region, are also greatly affected by the employment insurance reform. For these seasonal workers, it is almost impossible to accumulate the number of hours required to be eligible for employment insurance, because work periods in the construction field are limited and the reform encourages clandestine work.

We have been told that some employers take advantage of the situation. They hire workers at a lower rate and do not pay any premium for these workers, which explains why about a hundred honest workers complain every week, because they are not eligible for employment insurance or welfare.

Other problems with section 17 of the employment insurance regulations have been brought to our attention. Some people who work for the same company but live in different regions, like the Chicoutimi—Jonquière area and northern Quebec, are being treated differently under the current employment insurance scheme.

The number of hours worked to become eligible and the number of weeks of benefits differ from one region to another, which means that a resident of Alma could receive benefits during nine weeks more than a resident of Jonquière.

If, as the Minister of Human Resources Development put it, he is really “following this reform very closely in order to ensure that it continues to serve Canadians well”, I would invite him to take note of all the flaws the Bloc Quebecois has spotted in his reform of the employment insurance program.

Last week, the health minister announced a new subsidy to ParticipAction. Let me encourage this organization to launch a new fitness program especially designed for the Liberal members, something to stimulate their brains and help them connect with today's reality, so they can notice the living conditions of the unemployed, since almost half of the contributors are no longer eligible for employment insurance benefits.

[Canadian Armed Forces, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last week, Maclean's magazine reported on 13 women who were victims of harassment, sexual assault and rape in the armed forces.

Following this article, 11 other women came forward, bringing to 24 the number of women who have been victims of such abuse.

The Bloc Quebecois wishes to acknowledge the courage shown by these women in reporting experiences that bring back painful memories.

We urge all women in the military who suffered such abuse to come forward, to put an end to this situation and create in the armed forces a work environment based on respect, equality and dignity.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, May 25th, 1998]

Liberal members from Quebec either do not have the Prime Minister's attention or are insensitive to their constituents' needs.

Need I remind my colleagues opposite that all the witnesses from Quebec who appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance were in favour of a withdrawal with full compensation?

Some 14 groups and individuals from the education community came to express their disagreement with the Prime Minister's idea.

To put in perspective the outcry caused by this Liberal initiative, it is interesting to note that 41% of the witnesses who appeared before the standing parliamentary committee to express their views on the millennium scholarships were from Quebec.

And yet, the federal government continues to turn a deaf ear and is not proposing any amendments to Bill C-36. The comments made by those witnesses from Quebec were very clear to those who understand French, one of the two official languages of this great country that is Canada.

For example, the Coalition des ex-leaders étudiants québécois eloquently said that with its millennium scholarships, the federal government is proving its ignorance and its incompetence in the area of education.

As for the president of the Fédération des cégeps, he said just as eloquently that Bill C-36 does not take into account what Quebec has accomplished over the last 30 years in the area of financial assistance to students.

One has to wonder if the government that concocted these infamous scholarships lives on the same planet as we do. How many times, since Quebec joined the federation, have Quebeckers of all parties condemned duplication and overlap between federal and provincial programs? Today, with the millennium scholarships, the federal government is trying once again to invade Quebec's education system by competing directly with the province's loans and scholarships program. Has the federal government even looked at the needs of Quebeckers in this area? Certainly not.

After making drastic cuts in transfers to the provinces and threatening the balance in Quebec's education system, the federal government comes up with a wall to wall solution that simply does not suit Quebec.

In 1997 the task force on funding for Quebec universities concluded that previous cuts were the main reason for the increase in the number of students per classroom and in lecturers' workload and for the decrease in the number of teaching assistants. These choices led to a decrease in the overall supervision of students, which is directly related to the quality of education.

The opinion of Mrs. Boileau, of the Fédération nationale des enseignantes et des enseignants du Québec, a member of the CSN, is totally in sync with the suggestion of the Bloc Quebecois to opt out of part I of Bill C-36. She said that the only way out is for the federal government to give back to the provinces what it has cut from the transfers, not to hand out millennium scholarships.

As several people said before, Quebec has proven its ability in the loans and scholarships area. The way it manages its program is quite innovative. More needs to be done in order to ensure equal access to university studies for young Quebeckers. However, the implementation of a parallel system will not help to improve the system we now have in Quebec, especially since eligibility for the millennium scholarships will be based on an elitist approach.

By contrast, Quebec's loans and scholarships program focuses on the needs of students, to promote greater accessibility and equal opportunities.

We need to enhance our current system, not create more duplication that would only further distort the Quebec loans and scholarships program. I therefore urge my colleagues in this House to listen to the 1.2 million Quebecers who, through their associations, expressed their views on the millennium scholarships to the Standing Committee on Finance.

Just like them, and on their behalf, we ask members for nothing less than the right to opt out with full financial compensation, so that we can spend the money according to the needs and realities of Quebec.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, May 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my Bloc Quebecois colleagues who have spoken on Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998.

Today, we are primarily dealing with the motions relating to the millennium scholarships. More than 40 of these motions were tabled by the hon. member for Québec and their overall objective is to eliminate the millennium scholarship foundation from Bill C-36.

In so doing, the Bloc Quebecois is echoing the consensus reached among all the Quebec stakeholders who appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance and who unanimously condemned these scholarships and asked for withdrawal with full compensation.

It is rather difficult to understand the policies of this government. After adopting a resolution recognizing the distinct character of Quebec society, the Chrétien government is now trying to get involved in education, which is a vital component in the development of a people.

As for us in the Bloc Quebecois, we know that the flexibility of Canadian federalism is nothing but a myth and that what the government gives with one hand, it takes back with the other hand.

The millennium scholarships show the true face of federalism as a centralizing, if not levelling, force. The Chrétien government really does not understand anything about Quebeckers' aspirations.

[David Levine, May 15th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on the one side, we have the hon. member for Carleton—Gloucester also adding fuel to the fire by calling for Mr. Levine's dismissal because of his alleged political views. On the other, we have the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier making far more respectful comments.

What, exactly, is the government position?

[David Levine, May 15th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

The government has a responsibility to ensure the enforcement of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yesterday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs once again added fuel to the fire by refusing to clearly condemn the demonstrations in opposition to David Levine's hiring to head the Ottawa Hospital.

By sanctioning this witch-hunt at Mr. Levine's expense, is the government not sending a message that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply to Quebec sovereignists or those under suspicion of being sovereignists?